Sarah Palin took away the best thing Obama had going for him and that was all the attention he was getting for being this different politician.
Prior to Palin being chosen all over the news it was Obama did this, Obama did that and even around campus people would be discussing Obama. Now I see Palin every where and people are busy talking about this hot, charismatic Alaskan woman who might be the VP.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotNo. The basic point is that teaching abstinence is going to waste money.
You'd have a point if you had some empirical evidence that combined programmes of encouraging abstinence alongside providing information on STDs and contraception conclusively has no benefit. But I'm unaware of such studies.
Originally posted by lord xyz
No. The basic point is that teaching abstinence is going to waste money.
Why? It's not particularly complex, you can grab anyone and give them a thirty second speech to read. Not to mention that abstinence actually does work when people do it, sure most don't but no effort at all is involved in mentioning it.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, how can you teach abstinence without books, getting teachers in that field etc. without using money? Or does abstinence money come from God?
Teachers are already teaching sex-ed so no cost is added there. Abstinence is simple enough that you don't need books or training to explain it (unless one or more parties are retarded). And absitence has been proven to prevent pregnancy and many STDS 100% of the time, so it's very much worth talking about.
Originally posted by lord xyzAgain, you misunderstand the position liberals have on the issue (I'd also assume you misunderstood Penn and Teller). Absitenence ONLY is a waste of money and fails with dire consequences (*scary voice*) ...abstinence as an addition is a very valuable and necessary part of good and thorough sex ed and money well spent.
Spending money on something that doesn't work and is fail? Sounds like wasting it to me.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, you misunderstand the position liberals have on the issue (I'd also assume you misunderstood Penn and Teller). Absitenence ONLY is a waste of money and fails with dire consequences (*scary voice*) ...abstinence as an addition is a very valuable and necessary part of good and thorough sex ed and money well spent.
You, sir, are correct.
...
Not to insult your or anything, but it's quite obvious that that is the best line of thought. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks it's obvious. 🙁
On another note, I hope that Sarah is put in her stupid lying milfish (soon to be gilfish) place. Then we'll get back on track to electing a democrat this time around.
Originally posted by Bardock42What benefit would come from teaching abstinence?
Again, you misunderstand the position liberals have on the issue (I'd also assume you misunderstood Penn and Teller). Absitenence ONLY is a waste of money and fails with dire consequences (*scary voice*) ...abstinence as an addition is a very valuable and necessary part of good and thorough sex ed and money well spent.
Originally posted by lord xyz
What benefit would come from teaching abstinence?
You can still get an STD and get someone preggers with protection.
Birth control can turn women into bitches, cause them permanent damage to their libido, and other stuff.
IUD's are not even fool proof when it comes to getting preggers.
Duh?
Originally posted by dadudemonNormal sex ed teaches that, and elaborates on it, saying it's 97% of the time...and, when I asked, I was told that if everything went according to plan IE nothing happened to the condom, she won't get pregnant.
You can still get an STD and get someone preggers with protection.
Originally posted by dadudemonNever heard of that, but again, normal sex ed will cover that.
Birth control can turn women into bitches, cause them permanent damage to their libido, and other stuff.
Originally posted by dadudemonNormal sex ed will cover that.
IUD's are not even fool proof when it comes to getting preggers.Duh?
Originally posted by lord xyzYeah, and normal sex ed would also cover abstinence. What's your point?
Normal sex ed teaches that, and elaborates on it, saying it's 97% of the time...and, when I asked, I was told that if everything went according to plan IE nothing happened to the condom, she won't get pregnant.Never heard of that, but again, normal sex ed will cover that.
Normal sex ed will cover that.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotNah, his digging out is a bit better. He's going to change his arguments slightly until they are the same as ours, then say "Wait, but that's what I've been saying all along, you just misunderstood. I was only talking about abstinence only being bad. lol, silly mistake on your side. lets all be friends"
Teachers in the "field" of abstinence? Books on abstinence? The huge expensiveness of abstinence?Way to dig yourself out of stupid comments with more stupid comments.